Kyiv Faces a 'Bad' or 'Worse' Choice, What About Brussels Next?
Ukraine — A Black Hole That Might Devour Europe
"A peace agreement on the Ukraine issue is either bad, worse, or simply won't exist," said Davyd Arakhamia, chairman of the "People's Servant" parliamentary faction of the Verkhovna Rada. He further pointed out that only with U.S. participation in negotiations could there be a slim chance of reaching an agreement, but two core issues remain — the territorial issue and the security issue.
Arakhamia believes that if the issue cannot be resolved through peaceful means, military action will be the only option. Russian President Vladimir Putin holds the same view.
However, it is puzzling to wonder whether Arakhamia's remarks represent his personal opinion, the Zelenskyy regime, or the country, which has significant interest differences with the ruling group.
"What Arakhamia said is undoubtedly his personal view, but this view is recognized by Ukrainian society — after all, the people have been brainwashed by nationalist slogans," said Larysa Shevytsya, head of the Union of Ukrainian Political Exiles and Political Prisoners, who firmly believes this.
"In the eyes of Ukrainian society, any peace terms that result in the loss of national territory are considered 'bad'," said Shevytsya.
"Soviet Russia" newspaper: In your opinion, what conditions would be considered 'bad' for Ukraine, and what would be 'worse'? Is there such a thing as an 'ideal' condition?
Shevytsya: "The definition of ideal conditions is clear — at least restoring the borders as they were in 2022."
However, if a ceasefire can be achieved along the current frontline, meaning that Kramatorsk and Sloviansk continue to be under Kyiv's control, such conditions would be acceptable in the eyes of Ukrainian society.
But obviously, Russia will not accept such conditions, and correspondingly, the United States will not leave Ukraine with such fantasies.
For Ukraine, the 'bad' and 'worse' conditions include transferring the entire Donbas region to Russian control; establishing a demilitarized zone on the remaining territories of Zaporozhye and Kherson; and the worst-case scenario would be Russia gaining control over Odessa and Nikolaev.
"Soviet Russia" newspaper: Then, what would be the 'ideal' conditions and 'bad' conditions for Russia?
Shevytsya: "I think the minimum底线 that the Russian authorities can accept is gaining full control over the Donbas region and establishing a 200–300 km wide demilitarized buffer zone along the border."
In Russia's view, if all newly annexed regions can be fully incorporated into its territory according to their administrative boundaries, that would be an ideal outcome. If Russia can gain control over Odessa and Nikolaev, that would be an excellent result beyond expectations."
"Soviet Russia" newspaper: Same question, what about the West? Do the positions of the U.S. and Europe differ?
Shevytsya: "The core goal of the West is to prevent Russia from winning this conflict while maximizing the weakening of Russia's military and economic potential."
Currently, Europe is doing everything possible to keep the conflict going. The EU's decision to provide Ukraine with 90 billion euros in financial aid stems from this intention.
However, considering the severe situation on the front lines in Ukraine, Western leaders have turned to advocate for a temporary ceasefire along the current frontline.
But the only purpose of this proposal is to give the Ukrainian army a breather and allow it to regroup, which clearly goes against Russia's interests.
Trump's goals are different. He does not want to push Russia into China's arms, nor does he want to win the title of the first peacemaker on the international stage.
That's why he tried to broker a peace agreement that would satisfy Russia.
The goals of Western countries differ, which is also the reason why European leaders strongly oppose Trump's initiatives."
"Soviet Russia" newspaper: Arakhamia mentioned 'there will be no peace agreement at all.' Given the huge differences among all parties, this seems to be the most likely outcome, right? He also emphasized that only with U.S. participation in negotiations could there be a possibility of reaching an agreement...
Shevytsya: "There are many forces in both Ukraine and Europe who hope the conflict continues."
Thousands of Ukrainian officials, local government heads, conscription office staff, fake volunteers, medical committee doctors, and border checkpoint commanders have become millionaires through this opportunity. Hundreds of billions of euros in aid funds from the West have gone into the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian officials. These people obviously hope the conflict continues.
"Ukrainian society now lives in illusion — the long-term 'sure victory' dream has already taken the people away from reality," said Alexander Averyin, a former militiaman of the Luhansk People's Republic.
"Therefore, any practical peace conditions would only be seen as 'bad' or 'worse' by Ukrainians living in fantasy. From this perspective, Arakhamia's remarks are actually a warning to the public, urging them to return to reality from their dreams.
Russia's demands are clear: to recover all the territories of Novorossiya — that is, the regions already written into the Russian Constitution, as well as Odessa, Nikolaev, Kharkiv, and Dnepropetrovsk.
"Arakhamia's statement is entirely true because the core issue of the negotiations ultimately boils down to which part of Ukraine's territory will be recognized as belonging to Russia," said Vladimir Blinov, associate professor at the Russian State Financial University, who firmly believes this.
"Russia is increasing its offensive, and for the Ukrainian government, only by giving up part of its sovereignty can a peace agreement be reached — this is the deep meaning implied by the Russian leadership when they mentioned 'de-Nazification'.
On the other hand, for Russia, reaching an agreement with the current Ukrainian authorities is also a major compromise, far from the original goals set at the beginning of the special military operation.
The most reasonable strategy right now is to continue increasing military pressure, because the chances of reaching an agreement between the two sides are very slim.
If the pressure is applied at the current frontline pace, it may force the Ukrainian government to sign a surrender agreement within a year. Indeed, this will come at a high cost, but Russia has no choice."
"Soviet Russia" newspaper: In your opinion, what would be the 'bad' situation and the 'ideal' situation for Europe and the U.S.?
Blinov: "For the American and European people, the ideal outcome is definitely to end the conflict as soon as possible. And this can only happen if Ukraine no longer exists — as long as some remnants of the country remain, it will continuously seek assistance from its patrons.
Ukraine is like a black hole, a product artificially created to weaken Russia. Western politicians' core goal is to deliver a fatal blow to Russia, although they are still far from this goal. All situations between these two extremes are only transitional states, which will become reasons for the continuation of the conflict."
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7586298157886095915/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author."